Chanel Illusion d'Ombre Long-Wear Luminous Eyeshadows Swatches, Photos, Reviews

Christine — Tue, 28 Jun 2011 18:00:59 +0000

Chanel Illusion d’Ombre Long-Wear Luminous Eyeshadows

Chanel Fall 2011: Illusion d’Ombre Long-Wear Luminous Eyeshadow

Chanel Illusion d’Ombre Long-Wear Luminous Eyeshadow ($36.00 for 0.14 oz.) is a new product for fall, and it comes in six different shades. Chanel describes these as: “This intensely shimmering long-wear eyeshadow offers true versatility. An innovative gel texture that is both soft and cushiony allows it to be worn as eyeshadow or eyeliner. Includes a specially designed shadow/liner brush, developed specifically for this unique formula.”

I think the most common question I got asked regarding these was, “How do these compare to Giorgio Armani Eyes to Kill Intense?” The easy answer: they don’t. They’re in glass pots with black lids, and they’re really quite differennt otherwise. The formulas are not the same at all. There is such a drastic difference in the texture alone that they do not invite comparison. In terms of color, there may be similarities, but that is no different than comparing any eyeshadow to either of these products. It’s like comparing a the formula of a cream eyeshadow to that of a powder eyeshadow. The texture of these is most like Buxom’s Stay There eyeshadows but these are springier.

Fantasme is a bright white with silvery-white shimmer. Of the six, this was the only one that I would categorize as sheer. This is more like white and silver shimmer spread through a clear base. It adds sparkle rather than color. MAC’s Pearl Reflects Glitter is most comparable, but it is a chunkier glitter and will need an adhesive base or modifier to get it to stay (and last I heard, MAC’s Glitters were not eye safe).
Emerveille is a soft peach with a hint of brown and a champagne shimmer-sheen. theBalm’s Luscious Lani is very similar in color, perhaps a touch less peach. It seems like it would also be comparable to Benefit’s RSVP.
Illusoire is a smoky, purple-mauve over a grayish-brown base with a silvery sheen. This has a frostier finish, compared to the subtly metallic finish of Emerveille. It is similar to MAC Hint of Sapphire, but it doesn’t have the multi-colored shimmer (however, it applies infinitely better). It’s a little taupe, but it does lean purple, so it’s not a true taupe. It ends up looking rather similar to the grayish-purple shade from the same collection’s Prelude Eyeshadow Quad, just with a more shimmery finish.
Epatant is a smoky, muted taupe with a hint of green with an antique gold shimmer-sheen. MAC Greensmoke is much darker and greener, while Make Up For Ever #84 is closer in overall color/feel, it is more intense.
Mirifique is a dark black with multi-colored shimmer and larger silver sparkle. I can’t think of a dupe for this particular shade, because the way the glitter sits on the black base makes it different. Perhaps MAC Black Tied, but Black Tied is a weaker formula with less color payoff.
Ebloui is a burgundy brown with warm, red undertones and multi-colored shimmer that is dominated by gold and cranberry. On me, my yellower undertones pull out the brown tones, while I would expect pinker undertones to pull out the burgundy tones. I couldn’t find a dupe for this one; it’s brown yet burgundy. It might be duped with a mix of Urban Decay Gash and MAC Cranberry.

The texture of these is bizarre–they’re spongy but they bounce back. I imagine this is the texture most expected out of MAC Big Bounce Eyeshadows, actually. They are a gel-based formula, but they have the thickness of a cream, creaminess of a mousse, and springiness of a sponge. It spreads really nicely and evenly on the lid without being sheer (unless you deliberately apply a minute amount).

I found five of the six to be nicely pigmented with no concerns for lack of color payoff–Fantasme was the only one I found lacking in that department. The colors themselves are soft and subtle, with an edge of smokiness, and they tend to be more than just one flat color, so they will easily take on different tones depending on how they’re worn, what they’re paired with, and the undertones in the skin.

On me, these wear twelve hours (worn alone, no primer) without creasing, fading, migrating, or smudging. They apply evenly over the lid, and they’re blendable for long enough to give you time to soften any edges but are never fully wet, so they don’t gather into the creases and lines of the eye before it fully sets. Once it sets, it really doesn’t budge.

The brush included with each shade is actually useful, though in all honesty, it’ll be thrown into a drawer (along with all of those velvety pouches that I don’t use but can’t bear to toss). It works, and it does work well with these–it’s a nice touch, because it’s a quality brush with a thin, angled edge to allow for lining but with enough area to also apply all-over the lid. I prefer brushes with longer handles, but this is one of the better brushes I’ve seen included with a product.

Fantasme, again, was the only shade that was less-than-stellar, and of course, it would not earn the same marks as these do overall or as the other shades. It is one of six, and it is the only one with any reason for a reduction in rating. I would give it a 7 on pigmentation and 8.5 on texture. Again, this is why I prefer reviewing individual shades rather than groups of shades in one post!